42 comments:

As soon as I read that, I thought that it was a REALLY stupid comment for somebody whose name was used in the article to make. She'd better get rid of her stash fast before the police show up to raid her place and evacuate her to jail.

And am I odd, or did anybody else think this was one of the sexiest photographs they'd seen in a newspaper in a while:

I was on the fence about forced evacuations. Having read the article, I don't think that the government should have the right to make people leave. As long as they are taking care of themselves and willing to take on the risk, they should be allowed to stay. And I don't think the government has the right to confiscate their weapons.

Charming as flashing one's breasts can be (particularly when combined with scrutable facial expressions of desire and invitation), as a survival tool it does have limitations.

Well, there's no photo of that--and it wouldn't have been half as sexy as the shot of picnic in the dark apartment. To me anyway.

I did laugh out loud when I read the bit about flashing her tits to get the cops to patrol regularly, though -- a pretty resourceful twist on what is is, after all, a New Orleans / Mardi Gras tradition (police patrols, at present, being much more valuable than beads).

I suppose there's a certain amount of charm to the idea of holding out in the spirit of New Orleans, etc. Soon enough it will be time to leave though. One good thing is that whatever ill fortune falls upon those who decide to stay, it will be cited as an example of a failure by (pick your #1 blamee) to do the the right thing.

But why? If you're in a dry part of town (especially one that never flooded), have enough supplies, and even a job nearby, why will it be time to leave? I'd say that soon enough, the power and water are going to come back on. I'd further say that emptying people even out of unscathed areas of the city may delay or cripple rebuilding efforts. So, even when services are restored, how quick are people going to be to go back to a city that's been emptied of all life, activity, and commerce?

Anyone else suspect that a lot of the people covered in stories like this have guns and the Times leaves that fact out? Just a hunch, but that bit about the couple having lots of food, water, gasoline, and "a dog to protect them" doesn't ring true to me. I have a highly sophisticated, well-to-do colleague in New Orleans whose son has been carrying an AK-47 all week to protect the family; point being, everyone is packing down there -- the law-breaking AND the law-abiding. My theory is that the Times editors can't have guns depicted as useful, even necessary. But who knows, maybe I'm just overly suspicious.

Anyone else suspect that a lot of the people covered in stories like this have guns and the Times leaves that fact out? Just a hunch, but that bit about the couple having lots of food, water, gasoline, and "a dog to protect them" doesn't ring true to me. I have a highly sophisticated, well-to-do colleague in New Orleans whose son has been carrying an AK-47 all week to protect the family; point being, everyone is packing down there -- the law-breaking AND the law-abiding. My theory is that the Times editors can't have guns depicted as useful, even necessary. But who knows, maybe I'm just overly suspicious.

I did read the article first (btw sorry about the double posting) and it's not clear why you would think that I didn't. If you're referring to the part about the confiscation of firearms, surely you don't think this means that all holdouts have been disarmed.

You may be right, perhaps some hardy group can endure become the seeds of a reborn city, but the logistics seem too difficult, What business/jobs will really be able to persist, will there be police/fire/medical going forward, will there be water and sewage service? Where will the people to run these services live and work from? What about air quality, disease?

Before I assume the New Orleans police for the first time in their history are doing what they claim to do (especially vis a vis gun confiscation) I want a hard count of all the guns they've successfully confiscated in the face of resistance, as well as the identities of the owners. After all, these are the same people who can't control crime in New Orleans when there isn't a natural disaster of epic proportions on.

I suspect you'll find that all the guns they've "confiscated" either came out of gun shops or a dead criminal's hand. Of course, if we end up with a bunch of civilians shot dead while resisting what appears to be a facial violation of the Louisiana state constitution by NOLA cops, the plaintiffs' lawyers on Poydras are going to have a field day. I hear none of their offices suffered any serious damage either from Katrina or the flooding.

Imeade, this really isn't worth a discussion, but to spell it out in very clear terms for you. My point was that in this story and others like it (as indicated by my phrase "stories like this") -- meaning stories about people staying in their homes while reportedly gangs of thugs ran wild -- my suspicion was that many if not most of the holdouts have been armed. To me that might be a detail worth reporting, and my further suspicion was that the Times has been omitting or editing out such details because they don't comport with the notion that only right-wing nutjobs and criminals care about guns, and that there are NO legitimate uses for privately-owned firearms, etc. I have never owned a firearm and I don't care too much about the gun-control/rights debate; I just think that people's ability to defend and protect themselves when the authorities have failed them is a significant story and the Times seems to be tap-dancing around it because of its aversion to guns.

This is the angle that, I speculated, the Times is glossing over. Not that the Times was deleting the word "gun" from its articles.

I must be hopelessly square but I'm OK with that -- can someone please tell me why is it considered cute and/or charming that one of the criteria for staying in New Orleans is the availability of weed?

I've seen too many lives greatly harmed, if not outright destroyed, by weed -- and last time I checked it's still illegal. Clearly the MSM doesn't agree that it should be illegal, though, thus their (odd) choice to give these comments such prominence.

Along the same lines, it's bad enough that woman is flashing her breasts in NO; does the whole country have to hear about it? She may think it's funny now, but imagine her child or grandchild googling her name in the future and finding these news accounts.

People doing stuff like that, and bragging about it, rarely stop to think about how they'll feel about their actions later. I wish reporters and editors would take some care.

Hi, officers, great to see you. Guns? What guns? We don't have any guns. Sold 'em all a long time ago to a buddy. I think he moved out of state. I'll be sure to let you know if I see any guns, though. Anything else I can help you with?

i'm sure if the young lady's future grandchildren ever come across the article, they'll be very proud to come from such fine stock.

and do the math, lmeade. i'm also sure they have guns. would you really announce to the world that you have a year's supply of water and food, and grass to boot, in a situation like this if you didn't?

ziemer said..."and do the math, lmeade. i'm also sure they have guns."

What math, ziemer? 1+0 = 1?

A commenter suspected the New York Times of leaving out the fact that many people in stories like this have firearms. I quoted the sentence in the Times' article that went, "To reduce the risk of violent confrontation, the police began confiscating firearms on Thursday, even those legally owned."

If you'll give me a minute, I'll check to see that I remembered to carry all remainders and got my decimal points in the right places.

Why assume her grandchildren would disapprove of her? (I'm taking the comment about grandchildren as being sarcastic). They might be proud of her bravado, they might be fond of her hippy persona. They might like weed, too.

fine, lmeade, i will just leave you to your little cartoon world in which a disarmed populace and a corrupt or murderous police force is better than one in which everyone just assumes everyone else is carrying a piece.

I've seen too many lives greatly harmed, if not outright destroyed, by weed -- and last time I checked it's still illegal. Clearly the MSM doesn't agree that it should be illegal, though, thus their (odd) choice to give these comments such prominence.

By weed? The only lives I've seen destroyed by weed are those destroyed by the criminal justice system. Alchohol? Yes, many, many lives harmed or destroyed though it is legal. Cocaine, crystal meth, crack, heroin --sure plenty of lives destroyed. But weed? Hell, it's barely illegal now where I live (and has been so for decades) and I'm just not seeing the destroyed lives.

Note that I said, "greatly harmed, if not outright destroyed," by marijauna use.

Off the top of my head, I can name 5 guys who suffered severe emotional development problems, and 2 others who really did trash their lives. Most of those first 5 recovered eventually and found a way to lead more happy and productive lives, but all of them that did had to give up the weed to do it.

Everyone recognizes the scourge of alcohol -- I know a number of functional alcoholics, too -- but few people are willing to admit that marijauna is, in fact, bad for you.

Sometimes I think it would be better if it were regulated like alcohol is, but then again, I think the drinking age laws we have are ridiculous and lead to irresponsibility. But I still can't get behind legalizing marijauna. I know that my own experiences don't constitute a valid sample or give an indication of what would happen across the population at large, but I haven't seen anything yet to make me feel differently about it. I admit that there is some inconsistency in my position here.

Zeimer, it's true that the lives that I would say were destroyed were ruined when the owners of said lives moved on to more horrible drugs. But in each case, their initial drug of choice was pot, and they toked up every day.

The lives that mostly suffered from arrested development, and from which recovery was possible, were affected only by pot (although sometimes alcohol played a role as well.) The guys who recovered will still drink beer and hang out, but have given up the daily pot habit.

From what I've seen, "doobage" (heh) alone is responsible for a lot of human misery. Maybe not death and destruction, but a lot of unpleasantness and ugliness.

I will agree that other drugs are far, far, worse. I used to think that cocaine was bad, until I saw the devistation of meth. One cop I talked to told me that, in his estimate, 80% of the crime in his precinct of NW Phoenix was meth related.

But pot is not without its own long term consequences. I am not talking a couple of years, or weekend use, but pretty much daily use for 25 or 30 years.

I am talking about more than stunting of emotional growth. Rather, almost a regression. Add to that, paranoia, and, interesting to me, an extreme environmental sensistivity to all the stuff we encounter in day to day life.

So, you find people who have a hard time holding down jobs because they think everyone at work is out to get them, and that they are using all sorts of environmental methods to do this, ranging from toxic chemicals through radio waves.

I used to think that a lot of this was halucinations. But it turns out that these environmental things actually exist. It is just that most of us don't notice them, but the pot heads do.

Let me add though that someone who had drunk as much alchohol as some of these people have smoked pot would probably have as many problems, just different ones.

As to guns in NOLA, there is an interesting discussion going on right now over at the Volokh Conspiracy (volokh.com). David Kopel is, to no one's surprise, taking the tact that taking the guns is illegal, whereas Orin Kerr is taking mostly the opposite stance. I think (IMHO unfortunately) Orin is currently getting the better of the discussion.

The site is usually fairly pro-2nd Amdt., so, to no one's surprise, there are calls for Orin to be banned as a Consprirator. Knowing Eugene somewhat, I don't see this happening.

Joan dear -- I agree that you are hopelessly square (and endearingly so) -- POT does not cause people to go on to harder drugs. People who smoke pot go on to harder drugs because they have addictive impulses. If it weren't pot it would be something else -- hair spray, whatever. Pot's harmless to non-addictie people.

If some people are high and dry and have health and supplies and a home that is structurally sound, no one -- the city, state or feds -- should have the right to force them to leave, absent a public health r safety emergency.

I haven't seen any story about gangs roaming the deserted city -- is that true?

Looks like that pic was a couple of Tulane undergrads who are deeply infatuated with the situation they've found themselves in.